6 ms·

We are going to have the government deal with shitty Mods? Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you'd stop going to that website. Serious question, why

We are going to have the government deal with shitty Mods? Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you'd stop going to that website. Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell? I stopped using Facebook and many subreddits. I have this self control. Is there anyone here that cannot stop visiting bad websites?

mcfunk 7y ago
>>Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell? Many good convos have happened on this -- Facebook is de facto required for participating in some levels of society. I've heard of people being required to use Facebook to get information as vital as announcements about school for their kids. For those of us with poorly understood chronic illnesses, Facebook is the only place we can find people who share our condition and can trade information with. Many community events are only announced through Facebook events. Essentially, it's infiltrated so many aspects of life that it's become very difficult for many people to fully walk away from.
- athroway 7y ago
  If Facebook disappeared overnight, my life and that of most of my social circle wouldn't change that much. I think the issue of Facebook penetrating everyone's aspects of life is perhaps unique to your side of the Atlantic. They only have the power people chose to give them. You could opt out any time you like, it's maybe not convenient but it's liberating. See Stallman on freedom etc.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I think part of the problem is that they have the power that OTHER people choose to give them. If my entire social circle uses Facebook then I don't have much of a choice.
sandworm101 7y ago
>> We are going to have the government deal with shitty Mods? Breitbart. >> Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you'd stop going to that website. If websites existed when you were a kid, you are not the target market for this tool. >>Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell? That's how addiction works. >>I stopped using Facebook and many subreddits. I have this self control. Then they have won. Every time a reasonable person disconnects, the ratio of unreasonable people on a platform increases. Unreasonableness, extremism, creates greater engagement, generating more add revenue. >> Is there anyone here that cannot stop visiting bad websites? We are all here aren't we?
- athroway 7y ago
  The platform shouldn't exist as a monopoly for discussion in the first place. If all people, when facing a website that sucked, just stopped using the damn website like GP and me, the platform wouldn't have this much power. Seriously, what's so hard with not using social media? Aren't there plenty of offline stuff to do and people to talk to in meatspace? Is its prevalence a uniquely American thing?
  - derp_dee_derp 7y ago
    Are you kidding? Social media companies literally have people on their payroll whose entire job is to increase engagement. They turn the sites into addictive Skinner boxes because the are incentivised to do so. Of course it's hard to quit. It's designed to be hard to quit.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  I would hardly classify Hacker News as a bad website. My inflammatory comments are routinely downvoted as they should be. My good posts tend to be well received. This is quite frankly one of the least terrible places on the internet for discussion with a relatively wide viewpoint for the internet. We've got libertarians, liberals, conservatives and even a few greens and generally we agree to keep it mostly civil because that's why we're all here. There's no crappy memes, no quizzes. We're explicitly here for the comments.
grenoire 7y ago
Yes, many people, even (!) in Hacker News. It's sometimes not about self-restraint, and that's an ongoing discussion here: What do you do when everybody else are on these services?
mfatica 7y ago
Where do I go for a Twitter sized audience if they ban me from their platform? The only real competitor is gab and there's barely anyone using it. The problem right now is these platforms are basically monopolies and are aggressively censoring people on the right side of politics
- krapp 7y ago
  Why do you need a Twitter sized audience? People were able to organize and communicate effectively on the web before Twitter, Facebook, etc. Not being on one of the big social media silos isn't de facto censorship, it's just slightly less convenient than being on them. But it's still entirely possible to build an audience elsewhere.
- athroway 7y ago
  Nobody is entitled to a Twitter-sized audience. I agree monopolies are bad but the fact that right-wing tolerant platforms are shitshows and niche compared to more mainstream ones is perhaps not the fault of the left. Maybe, just maybe, there aren't that many people holding (and willing to listen to) the kind of opinions commonly posted on gab et al.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Arguing for deplatforming while using a throwaway account to not get deplatformed on your main is somewhat ironic. ;)
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Not sure that athrowaway was arguing for deplatforming, though...
      - luckylion 7y ago
        I understood that "right-wing tolerant platforms" are different from platforms as deplatforming anything right-wing, as in "not tolerating" it, and that this would be all good, but I might have misunderstood.

mcfunk 7y ago

>>Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell? Many good convos have happened on this -- Facebook is de facto required for participating in some levels of society. I've heard of people being required to use Facebook to get information as vital as announcements about school for their kids. For those of us with poorly understood chronic illnesses, Facebook is the only place we can find people who share our condition and can trade information with. Many community events are only announced through Facebook events. Essentially, it's infiltrated so many aspects of life that it's become very difficult for many people to fully walk away from.

athroway 7y ago
If Facebook disappeared overnight, my life and that of most of my social circle wouldn't change that much. I think the issue of Facebook penetrating everyone's aspects of life is perhaps unique to your side of the Atlantic. They only have the power people chose to give them. You could opt out any time you like, it's maybe not convenient but it's liberating. See Stallman on freedom etc.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I think part of the problem is that they have the power that OTHER people choose to give them. If my entire social circle uses Facebook then I don't have much of a choice.

sandworm101 7y ago

>> We are going to have the government deal with shitty Mods? Breitbart. >> Back when I was a kid, if the Mods sucked, you'd stop going to that website. If websites existed when you were a kid, you are not the target market for this tool. >>Serious question, why do unhappy customers keep buying what bad companies sell? That's how addiction works. >>I stopped using Facebook and many subreddits. I have this self control. Then they have won. Every time a reasonable person disconnects, the ratio of unreasonable people on a platform increases. Unreasonableness, extremism, creates greater engagement, generating more add revenue. >> Is there anyone here that cannot stop visiting bad websites? We are all here aren't we?

athroway 7y ago
The platform shouldn't exist as a monopoly for discussion in the first place. If all people, when facing a website that sucked, just stopped using the damn website like GP and me, the platform wouldn't have this much power. Seriously, what's so hard with not using social media? Aren't there plenty of offline stuff to do and people to talk to in meatspace? Is its prevalence a uniquely American thing?
- derp_dee_derp 7y ago
  Are you kidding? Social media companies literally have people on their payroll whose entire job is to increase engagement. They turn the sites into addictive Skinner boxes because the are incentivised to do so. Of course it's hard to quit. It's designed to be hard to quit.
cannonedhamster 7y ago
I would hardly classify Hacker News as a bad website. My inflammatory comments are routinely downvoted as they should be. My good posts tend to be well received. This is quite frankly one of the least terrible places on the internet for discussion with a relatively wide viewpoint for the internet. We've got libertarians, liberals, conservatives and even a few greens and generally we agree to keep it mostly civil because that's why we're all here. There's no crappy memes, no quizzes. We're explicitly here for the comments.

grenoire 7y ago

Yes, many people, even (!) in Hacker News. It's sometimes not about self-restraint, and that's an ongoing discussion here: What do you do when everybody else are on these services?

mfatica 7y ago

Where do I go for a Twitter sized audience if they ban me from their platform? The only real competitor is gab and there's barely anyone using it. The problem right now is these platforms are basically monopolies and are aggressively censoring people on the right side of politics

krapp 7y ago
Why do you need a Twitter sized audience? People were able to organize and communicate effectively on the web before Twitter, Facebook, etc. Not being on one of the big social media silos isn't de facto censorship, it's just slightly less convenient than being on them. But it's still entirely possible to build an audience elsewhere.
athroway 7y ago
Nobody is entitled to a Twitter-sized audience. I agree monopolies are bad but the fact that right-wing tolerant platforms are shitshows and niche compared to more mainstream ones is perhaps not the fault of the left. Maybe, just maybe, there aren't that many people holding (and willing to listen to) the kind of opinions commonly posted on gab et al.
- luckylion 7y ago
  Arguing for deplatforming while using a throwaway account to not get deplatformed on your main is somewhat ironic. ;)
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Not sure that athrowaway was arguing for deplatforming, though...
    - luckylion 7y ago
      I understood that "right-wing tolerant platforms" are different from platforms as deplatforming anything right-wing, as in "not tolerating" it, and that this would be all good, but I might have misunderstood.